In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On April 15 2016 11:58 oneofthem wrote: lol watch his support not budge much. cultists will be cultists
I have come to the conclusion that Bernie support stems from a few key, hard premises.
(1) All powerful/existing institutions are corrupt (Wall Street, Corporations, FedGOV, Democratic party) (2) All money/donations are inherently corrupting (but donations to Bernie aren't) (3) Hillary is corrupted by existing institutions while Bernie isn't (25 years in the Senate with no bills keeps him clean)
Hillary supporters keep arguing with Bernie supporters about actual policies, details, costs, benefits, and the tradeoffs needed in a system of checks and balances. These are largely irrelevant from my experience in arguing with Bernie fans. It is all about the corruption inherent in the system. This is plainly ridiculous if you want to use objective measures (see link**), but from the under 30 years old millennial perspective with no exposure to power systems it can make sense. I am an older millennial who works a lot (33) and this whole tear down the system mentality made sense to me at 23.
**https://www.transparency.org/country/#USA USA 16/168, rating 74/100
For the record many of us have issues with unions and his ties with them, but you pick your battles. He's not going to win a primary ripping into unions (leadership) even if I'd be willing to bet he'd admit they have similar problems. Probably quicker to get on the ones that endorsed Hillary at the leadership level though.
I can only speak for Bernie supporters I'm familiar with, but many of us are reasonably aware of his short comings.
Corruption is deep and wide and really at the core of the problem and Hillary is uncomfortably comfortable with the status quo.
On April 15 2016 11:58 oneofthem wrote: lol watch his support not budge much. cultists will be cultists
I have come to the conclusion that Bernie support stems from a few key, hard premises.
(1) All powerful/existing institutions are corrupt (Wall Street, Corporations, FedGOV, Democratic party) (2) All money/donations are inherently corrupting (but donations to Bernie aren't) (3) Hillary is corrupted by existing institutions while Bernie isn't (25 years in the Senate with no bills keeps him clean)
Hillary supporters keep arguing with Bernie supporters about actual policies, details, costs, benefits, and the tradeoffs needed in a system of checks and balances. These are largely irrelevant from my experience in arguing with Bernie fans. It is all about the corruption inherent in the system. This is plainly ridiculous if you want to use objective measures (see link**), but from the under 30 years old millennial perspective with no exposure to power systems it can make sense. I am an older millennial who works a lot (33) and this whole tear down the system mentality made sense to me at 23.
**https://www.transparency.org/country/#USA USA 16/168, rating 74/100
This is brilliantly stated. Well done.
Overall, this is an incredibly disappointing election cycle.
All this talk about "corruption" from Bernsters and from reactionary Hillaryites is pretty tired. Malice and back room dealing has nothing little to do with it. It's about cognitive capture and the bounds of the imaginary.
Since when are national elections not disappointing? With the way primaries are setup, there's really no way for them not to be, and though Bernie may have shown a glimmer of an alternative a number of months ago, I think it's high time that those disenchanted by this whole process channel that disappointment into local and state elections that are more likely to bear palpable fruit.
I just realized, what exactly do people think Clinton says in these speeches? "I will make sure you can use the most DIRTY of tricks to do the most AWFUL of things to the middle class! Now, off to Panama with our CIA cocaine cash! Anyone in the mood to fund extremism so we can sell weapons to both sides of a conflict?"
On April 15 2016 11:58 oneofthem wrote: lol watch his support not budge much. cultists will be cultists
I have come to the conclusion that Bernie support stems from a few key, hard premises.
(1) All powerful/existing institutions are corrupt (Wall Street, Corporations, FedGOV, Democratic party) (2) All money/donations are inherently corrupting (but donations to Bernie aren't) (3) Hillary is corrupted by existing institutions while Bernie isn't (25 years in the Senate with no bills keeps him clean)
Hillary supporters keep arguing with Bernie supporters about actual policies, details, costs, benefits, and the tradeoffs needed in a system of checks and balances. These are largely irrelevant from my experience in arguing with Bernie fans. It is all about the corruption inherent in the system. This is plainly ridiculous if you want to use objective measures (see link**), but from the under 30 years old millennial perspective with no exposure to power systems it can make sense. I am an older millennial who works a lot (33) and this whole tear down the system mentality made sense to me at 23.
**https://www.transparency.org/country/#USA USA 16/168, rating 74/100
Certainly not all of his support, but that's a quite accurate description of his most ardent supporters, yeah.
So it's plainly ridiculous that a presidential candidate can raise $100s of millions of dollars in dark money through super pacs? Sanders supporters don't see corruption everywhere they look, they see it in places where it is undeniable.
I also disagree with the notion that sanders is a one-issue candidate; he's brought up a number of issues. 1. campaign finance reform 2. "disastrous" trade agreements" 3. Minimum wage 4. "breaking up the big banks" 5. climate change & fracking 6. college tuition
A final thought - Sanders has gotten criticism for saying he would let the banks decide how to break themselves up. This is the only answer that makes any sense - you allow them to sell off assets, and set it so their balance sheets cannot grow past a certain size. He's also called for separation of commercial and investment banking in the past which is the regulation this country had successfully for decades in the past. Breaking up oligarchies is nothing new, this isn't pie in the sky stuff like many are claiming.
On April 15 2016 13:26 TheFish7 wrote: So it's plainly ridiculous that a presidential candidate can raise $100s of millions of dollars in dark money through super pacs? Sanders supporters don't see corruption everywhere they look, they see it in places where it is undeniable.
I also disagree with the notion that sanders is a one-issue candidate; he's brought up a number of issues. 1. campaign finance reform 2. "disastrous" trade agreements" 3. Minimum wage 4. "breaking up the big banks" 5. climate change & fracking 6. college tuition
A final thought - Sanders has gotten criticism for saying he would let the banks decide how to break themselves up. This is the only answer that makes any sense - you allow them to sell off assets, and set it so their balance sheets cannot grow past a certain size. He's also called for separation of commercial and investment banking in the past which is the regulation this country had successfully for decades in the past. Breaking up oligarchies is nothing new, this isn't pie in the sky stuff like many are claiming.
JEB raised >$100 million in SuperPAC money and got washed out of the race. Obama got 2x McCains Wall Street contributions in 2008. Obama passed Dodd-Frank in 2010. Romney got 2x Obama's Wall Street contributions in 2012. I simply don't share your premise about corruption. I don't think it has the effect you think it does. I think political convictions (and the political polling that pushes them) matter vastly more than donations of money.
Did Big Tobacco buy out John Boehner when he was handing out Tobacco cash to his buddies? Or did John Boehner get that money because the Tobacco companies rationally realized that Boehner was an ideological supporter of theirs? I think the Republicans really believe what they say they do. I don't think it is the donations. If you talk to people, their political convictions tend to be real.
On April 15 2016 13:22 Mohdoo wrote: I just realized, what exactly do people think Clinton says in these speeches? "I will make sure you can use the most DIRTY of tricks to do the most AWFUL of things to the middle class! Now, off to Panama with our CIA cocaine cash! Anyone in the mood to fund extremism so we can sell weapons to both sides of a conflict?"
I heard it was a rehash of the Bin Laden kill and some kind of helicopter ride.
there is this underaddressed lack of understanding of individual vs management politival contributions. there is some crossover but back when finance etc was not as politicized many finance workers simply gave contribution for social issues which hillary represented rather strongly.
I already said that it would force the addendum onto her "In 2008 I told Wall st to cut it out" that read something like "then in 20xx I said __insert her sucking up to Wall st execs here__"
They have to have some pretty damning stuff if she's still sputtering about some mystery republican speeches where she's waiting to follow their lead on releasing, instead of just putting them out there and explaining them or just saying they were private and we can't afford them.
Finally got through most of the debate. I think that there were some good moments in there but it was undermined by the fact that the moderation for this debate sucked ass. Hard to evaluate the quality when 40% of it is just the moderators talking over the candidates.
On April 15 2016 13:22 Mohdoo wrote: I just realized, what exactly do people think Clinton says in these speeches? "I will make sure you can use the most DIRTY of tricks to do the most AWFUL of things to the middle class! Now, off to Panama with our CIA cocaine cash! Anyone in the mood to fund extremism so we can sell weapons to both sides of a conflict?"
Almost certainly she says the kinds of things you can say to bankers but not to the public, that she would prefer not to justify if she doesn't have to.
Romney's famous "47 percent" was pretty well-received by the group of people to whom he was presenting, and by Republican-leaning businessmen in general. Obvious pandering to people who give you money.
I just can't believe people are actually expecting us to believe all of that money wasn't intended to yield any influence.
If it was the Koch brothers and any Republican none of the same people would be defending them like they are Hillary. Hell not even Hillary would do it.
Throwing years of campaigning on how Republicans are influenced by money in politics under the bus to defend Hillary.
On Thursday, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is starting a digital campaign that will use Internet ads and videos, as well as social media, to tie Republican Senate candidates to the policies and actions of the Koch brothers. Its slogan: “The G.O.P. is addicted to Koch” (pronounced coke).
Up first on the list is Alaska, where Democrats will try to link Dan Sullivan and Mead Treadwell, the Republican Senate candidates, to an oil refinery in the state owned by Koch Companies Public Sector. The refinery is set to cease gasoline and jet fuel production, which would lead to the layoffs of roughly 80 refinery workers.
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, foreshadowed the campaign by taking to the Senate floor on Tuesday — an unusual move — for the second time in two weeks to accuse the Koch brothers of unfairly meddling in the political system by helping to pump more than $30 million dollars so far in television advertising and other activities into the most competitive congressional races across the country. On Wednesday, he attacked them again during his weekly news conference.
Clinton got her ass kicked in multiple parts of the debate tonight. It's rather disconcerting how bad some of her answers are, even after having months to prepare. Sanders had some flawed answers/missed opportunities, but I thought he kept Clinton on the defensive for the majority of the debate.
Good for him, it's really incredible what he's done.
On April 15 2016 13:26 TheFish7 wrote: So it's plainly ridiculous that a presidential candidate can raise $100s of millions of dollars in dark money through super pacs? Sanders supporters don't see corruption everywhere they look, they see it in places where it is undeniable.
I also disagree with the notion that sanders is a one-issue candidate; he's brought up a number of issues. 1. campaign finance reform 2. "disastrous" trade agreements" 3. Minimum wage 4. "breaking up the big banks" 5. climate change & fracking 6. college tuition
A final thought - Sanders has gotten criticism for saying he would let the banks decide how to break themselves up. This is the only answer that makes any sense - you allow them to sell off assets, and set it so their balance sheets cannot grow past a certain size. He's also called for separation of commercial and investment banking in the past which is the regulation this country had successfully for decades in the past. Breaking up oligarchies is nothing new, this isn't pie in the sky stuff like many are claiming.
I think that a lot of the problems people have with Sanders is that those ideas sound appealing but that there is very little answers as to how to achieve them or what the impacts of his solutions actually would be. For example: a $15 national minimum wage can be disastrous for area's that can't afford to pay that to people.
As for Glass-Steagal, it was outdated and in the current day in age it wouldn't work. recognize that a lot of the banks that were in trouble/fell like AIG, Lehman Brothers etc were not consumer banks at all. These banks would still exist and would still cause problems whenever they do fall. Moreover, the rest of the world will not split between banks, that is to say that American banks would suffer significantly while foreign banks won't. The problem with that is that a lot of banks will lose a large amount of stock value and devaluate. Americans who have 401ks, mutual funds or hell even some pensions would lose a significant amount of value which is damaging to a lot of Americans.
in the past Glass-Steagal might have been succesfull but in this day and age it is not something that can just be reinstated and expected to solve stuff due to the globalization of markets.
There are also other issues on where people believe he is wrong(e.g nuclear power) but these are some that are leading his platform.
On April 15 2016 13:26 TheFish7 wrote: So it's plainly ridiculous that a presidential candidate can raise $100s of millions of dollars in dark money through super pacs? Sanders supporters don't see corruption everywhere they look, they see it in places where it is undeniable.
I also disagree with the notion that sanders is a one-issue candidate; he's brought up a number of issues. 1. campaign finance reform 2. "disastrous" trade agreements" 3. Minimum wage 4. "breaking up the big banks" 5. climate change & fracking 6. college tuition
A final thought - Sanders has gotten criticism for saying he would let the banks decide how to break themselves up. This is the only answer that makes any sense - you allow them to sell off assets, and set it so their balance sheets cannot grow past a certain size. He's also called for separation of commercial and investment banking in the past which is the regulation this country had successfully for decades in the past. Breaking up oligarchies is nothing new, this isn't pie in the sky stuff like many are claiming.
I think that a lot of the problems people have with Sanders is that those ideas sound appealing but that there is very little answers as to how to achieve them or what the impacts of his solutions actually would be. For example: a $15 national minimum wage can be disastrous for area's that can't afford to pay that to people.
As for Glass-Steagal, it was outdated and in the current day in age it wouldn't work. recognize that a lot of the banks that were in trouble/fell like AIG, Lehman Brothers etc were not consumer banks at all. These banks would still exist and would still cause problems whenever they do fall. Moreover, the rest of the world will not split between banks, that is to say that American banks would suffer significantly while foreign banks won't. The problem with that is that a lot of banks will lose a large amount of stock value and devaluate. Americans who have 401ks, mutual funds or hell even some pensions would lose a significant amount of value which is damaging to a lot of Americans.
in the past Glass-Steagal might have been succesfull but in this day and age it is not something that can just be reinstated and expected to solve stuff due to the globalization of markets.
There are also other issues on where people believe he is wrong(e.g nuclear power) but these are some that are leading his platform.
Bernie wants a "modernized Glass-Steagal" not just the same legislation word for word. He's put forth his own legislation on this anyway. No one expects just reinstating GS as it was is some magic bullet though.
i'm curious as to what his modernized GS looks like, surely the core is splitting up retail and investment banking(if not it wouldn't be called/refered to as GS)
On April 15 2016 18:12 Kipsate wrote: i'm curious as to what his modernized GS looks like, surely the core is splitting up retail and investment banking(if not it wouldn't be called/refered to as GS)
My presumption has been that it would target many of the workarounds developed over the lifespan of G-S. He hasn't specifically said as much, but that seems like a reasonable interpretation. But the larger point is to put the American people in a position where these folks can't make bets and threaten certain doom if we don't pay up for them.
I'm sure if anyone has ideas on how we can more effectively accomplish the goals, Bernie is open to it. But if all Hillary has is "Here's what we can concede to make Republicans like it", it won't be enough. I think we all learned from President Obama what that strategy gets us.
Berine: "We really should do something and this time do it right but i have no clue how yet." Hillary: "Not so fast, we can't have everything we want and we have to take other oppinions into account." Trump: And Mexico is gonna pay for it!
Is this really the "dept" of the political discourse in the US?...
EPT
